Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-04-22
Reply from Justice Ankle.
To the Editor Of the Register,


SIR:-As to the card of w. II. Davis, in
yesterdays issue of your paper, L have
little to say, but will contne myself to
facts, so far rs they have come to my
knowledge. In the first place l will say
that if Neuman is the character of man
that Davis represents him to be in his card,
and while on the witness stand before me,
he had no right as Justice to entertain
hiscOmplaint or TO issue warrant thereon.
In the second place / will say that If the
Paur brothers paid the assessments, as as
serted in the card written by Davis, the
eighty-fye cents set-of' presented by DAVIS
had or ought TO have been paid by them
and had nothing to do with the case OF
Neuman V. Davis. l desire here to call
attention to a little clap-trap contained IN
the card of Davis, but such things will al
ways happen to a man who has mania
for seeing his name in print. Davis says
that Neuman swOre out warrants for the
Paur brothers on the Sth day of March;
that George Paur swOre out warrant for
Neuman on the same day; that the cases
were tried on the night of that day; that
after allowing Neuman some ten days to
find surety, he issued q commitment for
him" Now mark you. in the very next
sentence he says: ION the 18th day OF
March, Nenman secured q bOndsman."
This would make three instead of ten days,
but it is matter of little Importance. l
only refer to it to show the wild wander
ings of mans mind when he is in q
hole and trying to crawl ont. So far
as the verdict OF the jury is concerned /
hn, 10, 10 hot | al nrniNnnn
lawyer or eminent jurist and unable to
declare that the verdict is worthless, but
am prepared to say that there is q sum
fixed by law on the findings of the jury.
As to my ruling in the case i have only
to say that Neuman was not on trial for
stealing COW, for killing the immortal
John Smith, or for calling his father-in-
law, mother-in-law, or any of his neigh
bOrs bad names, but 10 ascertain before a
Jury whether or not Davis, as q Justice OF
the Peace had Over-charged costs in the
case of the State against him on the Sth
day of March, 1887. The jury said Davis
did Over-charge and rendered a verdict ac-
cOrdingly, and because l would not permit
counsel to Te-hash old sores and dig up the
bones of the dead whom Neuman had here
tOfOre slain in order to prejudice the minds
of the jury against him, Davis finds tault
with my ruling. / will say in this con-
nection that have no pet attorney, and
when case is tried before me if an attOr-
ney goes into outside matters for pur-
pose as believe was done in this case, 1t is
my right and my duty to the parties to ac-
ton to prevent it and will dose to the best
of my ability in every case Davis says
''the Court has had no kind feeling for
me since | dismissed suit brought by
him against Constable Stamp for the
possession of the Office now occupied ly
Squire PeteIman. Nothing could be md Re
malicious, and there Is nothing in lis
whole card better calculated to show ne
animus of the man than this declaration.
The docket of Squire ID. u. Philips pro
nOunces every word of this charge u be
false, and no such suit was ever brought or
instigated by me. refer the public to
said docket, to Patrick Kenney, ex-Msrket
Master, Dennis 0'Keeffe, ex-City Solicit
tor, and TO the proceedings of Council as to
the truthfulness of Davis in this matter.
AS to me locking up the jury, it is false.
The Constable done so, and went to sup
per, but if this be an oflense, the JUICES OF
the Circuit Court had better be . little
careful or Davis will have their names in
the paper. l. did not nose around among
the jurymen to ascertain how they stood.
1t was sufficient for me TO know What they
said in their verdict, signed by tier fore
man. The itemized fee bills filed in this
case show that Davis did overclarge, and
no one knows the fact better AN Davis
himself. and this is not the ASf3 case, but
all that is involved at presenk In cOnclu-
sion desire to say that knowing Davis to
be famous writer, he having written him
self out of position under Mr.. c. P.
Brown, only ask space enough 10 keep
him within the bounds of trIthfnlness,
and when he writes an edition for the en-
lightenment and information Of his many
friends and admirers who have been before
him in his Court of Justice, will only
ask space sufficient to make any correction
which may be necessary.
bad intended to ask You 10 publish the
names of the six witnesses said to have
been subpRnaed in case of the State VS..
Neuman before Davis, but when exam
ined the papers in the case found that
what was claimed as theOriginal subpoena
and which Davis admitted on the witness
stand before me that he made out at the |
time of the trial, was made ont on the |
10Th day of April, which was over |
month after the trial before him. / found |
it and the set-off of eighty-five cents was |
missing, and rs Mr.. Davis was fumblinp |
over the papers on my desk at two differ |
ent times, and as no one but DAVIS could |
be interested in said papers, it may be that !
he knows something about them. now
challenge him to make their names public,
and they can tell whether or not they
were witnesses in said case.
RALPH ARKLE
Coon place to spend an afternoon, Base
Ball Exchange. NJ